UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D859,253
`
`Filed: June 7, 2018
`
`Issued: September 10, 2019
`
`Title: Vehicle Tailgate
`
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. DESIGN PATENT NO. D859,253
`
`Post Grant Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................ 4
`
`III. FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................ 6
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ......................................... 7
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ..................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Post Grant Review is
`Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the Challenge is
`Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) ......... 7
`
`An Overview of the ’253 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof – 37
`C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3) ............................................................................ 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’253 Patent ........................................................................... 7
`
`Claim Construction of the ’253 Patent .....................................12
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(4) ......................................................................................18
`
`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance of
`the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5) .....19
`
`V. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................... 20
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Designs Found Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................26
`
`Designer of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................31
`
`D. Ordinary Observer ...............................................................................33
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ................................................................................ 34
`
`A. Ground 1: The ʼ253 Patent is Invalid because it is a Partial-product
`Patent, which Violates the Doctrine of Exhaustion and GM’s
`Customers’ Repair Right. ....................................................................34
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The ’253 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Obvious over
`Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado. .........................................38
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Ground 3: Alternatively, the ’253 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as
`Obvious Over Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado in view of
`O’Donnell. ...........................................................................................51
`
`D. Ground 4: The ’253 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as Obvious over
`Patent Owner’s 2015 GMC Canyon. ..................................................57
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Alternatively, the ’253 Patent Claim is Unpatentable as
`Obvious Over Patent Owner’s 2015 GMC Canyon in view of
`O’Donnell. ...........................................................................................70
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 76
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3Form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`678 Fed. App’x. 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................... 23, 49, 68
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................21
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,
` 365 U.S. 336 (1961) .............................................................................................36
`
`Ashley Furniture Indus. Inc. v. Lifestyle Enter. Inc.,
` 574 F. Supp. 2d 920 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ...............................................................34
`
`C & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
` PGR2017-00019, Paper No. 37, 2018 WL 5298631 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018) ..31
`
`Campbell’s Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................21
`
`Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
` 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................13
`
`Dobson v. Dornan,
` 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
` 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
` 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................13
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
` 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................13
`
`Field v. Google, Inc.,
` 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006). .................................................................19
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.,
` 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................33
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Gorham Co. v. White,
` 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871) .............................................................................35
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966)) ................................................................................................21
`
`High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.,
` 730 F.3d 1301 (Fed.Cir.2013) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
` IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ..........................................20
`
`Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
` 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) .........................................................................................36
`
`In re Borden,
` 90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................... 21, 22, 55, 73
`
`In re Carter,
` 673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .............................................................. 24, 49, 68
`
`In re Chung,
` No. 00–1148, 2000 WL 1476861 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2000) .................... 24, 49, 68
`
`In re Lamb,
` 286 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ..................................................................... passim
`
`In re Nalbandian,
` 661 F.2d 1214 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ................................................................... passim
`
`In re Rosen,
` 673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................... passim
`
`Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC,
`264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................36
`
`Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc.,
`117 Fed. App’x 761 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................22
`
`iv
`
`

`

`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Marten Transport, Ltd. v. Platform Advertising, Inc.,
`No. 14-2464-JWL, 2016 WL 1718862 (D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2016) ..........................38
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
` 747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... passim
`
`Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC,
` Case No. 6:12-CV-33-ORL-28DAB, 2013 WL 12156465 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4,
`2013) .....................................................................................................................34
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................49
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................12
`
`Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Co.,
`444 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................26
`
`Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.,
` 148 U.S. 674 (1893) .............................................................................................35
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., Inc.,
` 820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................13
`
`Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................25
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc.,
` 698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 39, 58
`
`Xactware Sols., Inc. v. Pictometry Int’l, Corp.,
` IPR2016-00593, Paper No. 13, 2016 WL 5224310 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) ..58
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018) ........................................................................................7, 20
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
` Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) .................................................................... 1
`
`v
`
`

`

` Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 .....................................................................................................13
`37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`Vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D859,253 (“the ’253 Patent”).
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. D859,253.
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of James M. Gandy, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill, dated February 7, 2020.
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`2015 Chevrolet Colorado review, Automobile,
`https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2015-chevrolet-colorado-
`work-truck-review/, archived on March 12, 2016 by the Internet
`Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20160312164341/http://www.automobile
`mag.com/news/2015-chevrolet-colorado-work-truck-review/.
`
`U.S. Design Patent No. D710,283 (“O’Donnell).
`
`2015 GMC Canyon, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015.pdf,
`archived on April 1, 2014 by the Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140401092158/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015.pdf.
`
`2015 GMC Canyon brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015.pdf
`(accessed on November 5, 2019).
`
`2015 GMC Canyon, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015-
`2.pdf, archived on March 18, 2015, by the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150318143226/http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015-
`2.pdf.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Description
`
`2015 GMC Canyon brochure, http://www.auto-
`brochures.com/makes/GMC/Canyon/GMC_US%20Canyon_2015-
`2.pdf (accessed November 5, 2019).
`
`2015 GMC Canyon, https://www.autoguide.com/auto-
`news/2015/02/2015-gmc-canyon-long-term-review-the-enthusiast-
`test.html, archived on February 20, 2015 by the Internet Archive
`organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150220160215/http://www.autoguide.c
`om:80/auto-news/2015/02/2015-gmc-canyon-long-term-review-the-
`enthusiast-test.html.
`
`Robots.txt file of automobilemag.com,
`http://www.automobilemag.com/robots.txt, archived on March 12,
`2016 by Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20160312160404/https://www.automobile
`mag.com/robots.txt.
`
`Source code of auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-brochures.com/,
`archived on March 13, 2014 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140313222453/https://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`Source code of auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-brochures.com/,
`archived on May 17, 2014 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140517005107/https://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`
`Source code of auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-brochures.com/,
`archived on March 14, 2015 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150314210347/https://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Description
`
`Source code of auto-brochures.com, http://www.auto-brochures.com/,
`archived on March 31, 2015 by Internet Archive organization’s
`“Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150331130110/https://www.auto-
`brochures.com/.
`
`Robots.txt file of autoguide.com,
`http://www.automobilemag.com/robots.txt, archived on February 20,
`2015 by Internet Archive organization’s “Wayback Machine” at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150220220814/https://www.autoguide.
`com/robots.txt.
`
`Declaration of Margaret A. Herrmann, dated February 6, 2020.
`
`1019
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James M. Gandy.
`
`1020
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jason C. Hill.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ”
`
`or “Petitioner”) respectfully request post grant review of the claim of U.S. Design
`
`Patent No. D859,253 (“the ’253 Patent”) assigned to and owned by GM Global
`
`Technology Operations LLC (“GM” or “Patent Owner”). The ’253 Patent, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1001, was filed on June 7, 2018 and issued on September 10, 2019.
`
`Because the filing date of the ’253 Patent is after March 16, 2013, the “first inventor
`
`to file” rules govern this proceeding and conditions for patentability. See Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). This Petition
`
`shows by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the
`
`challenged claim of the ’253 Patent is unpatentable based on prior art that renders
`
`the claim obvious.
`
`The ’253 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle tailgate, as
`
`shown and described.” Ex. 1001, at 1. The ’253 Patent covers a single claim and
`
`five figures. Id. Figure 1 of the ’253 Patent is representative of the design:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`The solid lines of the ’253 Patent claim a vehicle tailgate comprising a
`
`primarily unadorned tailgate surface with a protruding upper portion and a horizontal
`
`crease in the lower portion, the tailgate having a slight convex curvature.
`
`However, these design elements are de minimis differences that are routine to
`
`a designer of ordinary skill in the art and/or are disclosed by prior art, as shown
`
`below in Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado, Patent Owner’s Design Patent
`
`No. D710,283 to O’Donnell et al. (“O’Donnell”), and Patent Owner’s 2015 GMC
`
`Canyon.
`
`2
`
`

`

`GM’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado
`
`Ex. 1005, at 17.
`
`O’Donnell
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, at 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`GM’s 2015 GMC Canyon
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, at 1.
`
`For the reasons set forth, below—and as shown by a simple comparison of the
`
`’253 Patent and the prior art—the ’253 Patent is unpatentable as obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In accordance with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, LKQ states as
`
`follows:
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest. LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., are real parties-in-interest. LKQ Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate
`
`office located at 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
`
`Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its corporate office located at 500 W.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LKQ Corporation.
`
`Related Proceedings. In addition to this Petition, LKQ has filed or is filing
`
`petitions for Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review for the following United
`
`States Design Patents also assigned to and owned by GM:
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D797,624;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D841,532;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D847,043;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D811,964;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D847,703;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D813,120;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D850,341;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D813,755;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D852,099;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D823,741;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D853,903; and
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D828,255;
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D859,246.
`
`• U.S. Design Patent No. D840,306;
`
`
`
`Designation of Petitioner’s Counsel. Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney
`
`with this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner identifies the following lead and
`
`backup counsel to represent it in this matter:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Barry F. Irwin, P.C.
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`Reid Huefner
`
`Irwin IP LLC
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`222 S. Riverside Plaza
`
`Suite 2350
`
`Suite 2350
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Phone: 312.667.6081
`
`Phone: 312.667.6083
`
`birwin@irwinip.com
`
`rhuefner@irwinip.com
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 36,557)
`
`Reg. No. (Reg. No. 57,341)
`
`Service Information. Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`proceeding via (1) filing documents in the Patent Review Processing System
`
`(“PRPS”) or (2) emailing the documents to the above-designated counsel (when not
`
`filed in PRPS).
`
`Proof of Service. Proof of service of this Petition on the patent owner at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ’253 Patent is attached.
`
`III.
`
`FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.203
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 is included with this Petition. The
`
`Director is authorized to charge any additional required fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`603199.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`
`A. Grounds for Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’253 Patent is available for post grant review and
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting post grant review
`
`challenging the patent claim on the grounds identified in this Petition. The ’253
`
`Patent is proper for post grant review as nine months have not yet elapsed since the
`
`patent issued.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenged Claim for Which Post Grant Review
`is Requested and Specific Statutory Grounds on which the
`Challenge is Based – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner requests that the single claim of the ’253 Patent be found
`
`unpatentable on the basis that its claim is obvious in light of prior art. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 (2018) (“A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains.”).
`
`C. An Overview of the ’253 Patent and Claim Construction Thereof –
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)
`
`1.
`
`The ’253 Patent
`
`What ultimately became the ’253 Patent, entitled “Vehicle Tailgate,” was
`
`filed on June 7, 2018 and assigned Application No. 29/650,488 (the “’488
`
`7
`
`

`

`Application”). Ex. 1002, at 41. The ’488 Application contained a single claim for
`
`“[t]he ornamental design for a vehicle tailgate, as shown and described.” Id. at 44.
`
`The ’488 Application contained five figures. Id. at 45–46. The ’488 Application
`
`was allowed without amendment and issued on September 10, 2019. Id. at 131; see
`
`also id. generally.
`
`The ’253 Patent contains the following figures and descriptions:
`
`“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a vehicle tailgate.” Ex. 1001, at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`“FIG. 2 is front view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 2.
`
`“FIG. 3 is a leftside view thereof (where the rightside view is a mirror image
`
`of the leftside view, with the exception of the ‘CHEVROLET’ indicia presented in
`
`broken lines).” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 3.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`“FIG. 4 is a top view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`Id., FIG. 4.
`
`“FIG. 5 is a bottom view thereof.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 5.
`
`The description further provides that “[t]he broken lines in the drawings
`
`illustrate portions of the vehicle tailgate that form no part of the claimed design.”
`
`Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Arranged collectively, the drawings illustrate the full scope of the claimed
`
`design:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Claim Construction of the ’253 Patent
`
`In a post grant review (“PGR”), “a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim
`
`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” 37 C.F.R § 42.200(b).1 LKQ therefore employs that standard herein.
`
`The scope of a design patent is defined by the solid lines (not the broken or
`
`dashed lines) depicted in the claimed drawings in conjunction with their
`
`descriptions. See, e.g., Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680
`
`
`
`1 Effective November 13, 2018, the so-called broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard is no longer appropriate. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-
`
`construction. Instead, all PGR proceedings must conduct their claim constructions
`
`using the Phillips standard put forth by the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That change was made to bring the PTAB
`
`in line with the federal courts and the International Trade Commission in
`
`examination
`
`standards.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/ptab-issues-claim-construction.
`
`12
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152); see also, Contessa Food
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although
`
`design patents protect ornamentation over function, “[i]f the overall appearance of a
`
`claimed design is not primarily functional, the design claim is not invalid, even if
`
`certain elements have functional purposes.” Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien,
`
`Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[C]laim was limited to the ornamental
`
`aspects of these functional elements.”). LKQ notes that it is well-settled that a design
`
`is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, 543
`
`F.3d at 679 (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)); see also, Sport
`
`Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`cases). However, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed
`
`design as they relate to the . . . prior art,” and thus LKQ does so herein. Egyptian
`
`Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. Cf. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730
`
`F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed.Cir.2013) (remanding to district court, in part, for a “verbal
`
`description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with that
`
`design”).
`
`The specification of the ’253 Patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a
`
`vehicle tailgate, as shown and described.” See Ex. 1001, at 1. The specification
`
`disclaims any broken lines in the figures, stating “[t]he broken lines in the drawings
`
`illustrate portions of the vehicle tailgate that form no part of the claimed design.” Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`at 1. Setting aside the unclaimed elements, the claimed design should be construed
`
`to be only the portions of the vehicle tailgate shown in solid lines and can be
`
`described as:
`
`The exterior appearance of a vehicle tailgate comprising:
`
`a horizontal top planar surface extending the width of the tailgate;
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1 (annotated);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`a contoured upper portion protruding from the horizontal top planar surface,
`
`first, sloping downward and away from the tailgate face, wherein the protrusion
`
`slightly increases in thickness as it approaches the handle insert and then, second,
`
`sloping downward and toward the tailgate face; and
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated);
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`a tailgate face primarily consisting of an unadorned vertical exterior surface,
`
`the vehicle tailgate overhung by the contoured upper portion, with surface features
`
`further comprising:
`
`a horizontal crease in the lower portion of the tailgate stretching across
`
`the entire surface; and
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated);
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`a convex top portion stretching horizontally across the entire upper
`
`portion of a convex tailgate.
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 3; Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at ¶¶ 32–35; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶¶ 30–33
`
`(setting forth the claim construction). The claimed design is disclosed through
`
`several figures that show the design from different perspectives. A design is best
`
`represented by images rather than words, and although a verbal construction is
`
`required, it is impractical to attempt to verbally characterize every element of the
`
`claimed design. The above claim construction identifies all of the features of the
`
`claimed design that materially contribute to the overall visual impression it creates;
`
`however, the below analyses compare the asserted prior art with the claimed design
`
`17
`
`

`

`in its entirety as depicted in each of the disclosed figures. Ex. 1003, Gandy Dec. at
`
`¶ 35; Ex. 1004, Hill Dec. at ¶ 34.
`
`D. How the Challenged Claim
`§ 42.204(b)(4)
`
`is Unpatentable – 37 C.F.R.
`
`Specifically, and as will be addressed more fully herein, there are five non-
`
`redundant grounds for unpatentability of the ’253 Patent.
`
`• First, the single claim of the ʼ253 Patent is unpatentable because it is a
`
`partial-product patent;
`
`• Second, the single claim of the ’253 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado (Ex. 1005);
`
`• Third, the single claim of the ’253 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2015 Chevrolet Colorado (Ex. 1005) in view of
`
`Patent Owner’s U.S. Design Patent No. 710,283 to O’Donnell et al.
`
`(“O’Donnell”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`• Fourth, the single claim of the ’253 Patent is unpatentable as obvious
`
`over Patent Owner’s 2015 GMC Canyon (Exs. 1007, 1009, and 1011);
`
`and
`
`• Fifth, alternatively, the single claim of the ’253 Patent is unpatentable
`
`as obvious over Patent Owner’s 2015 GMC Canyon (Exs. 1007, 1009,
`
`and 1011) in view of O’Donnell (Ex. 1006).
`
`18
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge and the Relevance
`of the Evidence to the Challenge Raised – 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5)
`
`The following prior art references render the claim of the ’253 Patent obvious:
`
`Exhibit Primary/
`Secondary
`
`Description
`
`Filing Date Publication/
`Issue Date
`
`1005
`
`Primary
`
`2015 Chevrolet Colorado
`
`N/A
`
`3/12/2016
`
`1007,
`1009,
`and
`1011
`
`Primary
`
`2015 GMC Canyon
`
`N/A
`
`04/01/2014
`and
`03/18/2015
`
`1006
`
`Secondary
`
`O’Donnell
`
`03/28/2013 08/05/2014
`
`
`
`Exs. 1008 and 1010 are submitted to support the public accessibility and
`
`authenticity of the exhibits and other prior art forming the basis of the above-listed
`
`invalidity grounds. In addition, for each of the above prior art references, further
`
`evidence is submitted and set forth below establishing its public accessibility and
`
`authenticity. This includes, inter alia, archived copies of the “robots.txt” files
`
`corresponding to each of the websites relied upon as prior art that demonstrate that
`
`each such website was indexable by search engines and thus publicly accessible at
`
`the time the relied-upon prior art webpages were archived. See Exs. 1012–1017;
`
`Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 1110–13, 1120 (D. Nev. 2006)
`
`(explaining the functionality and use of “robots.txt” files, and finding that inclusion
`
`19
`
`

`

`of a “robots.txt” file enabling search engine indexing demonstrated that the website
`
`owner sought to make the contents of the website available “to the widest possible
`
`audience”). In its totality, this Petition provides compelling evidence of public
`
`accessibility that the Patent Owner cannot reasonably refute, or at the very least
`
`provides evidence “sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [its asserted
`
`references were] publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent
`
`and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed
`
`publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper
`
`29, at *13, *18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) (setting forth the standard required of
`
`printed publications for institution of an IPR).
`
`V.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`A basis for Petitioner’s challenge to the patentability of the ’253 Patent is
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. A patent is invalid or unpatentable as obvious
`
`if “the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018). Obviousness is a question of
`
`law based on underlying factual questions. MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg.,
`
`LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The analysis should “include (1) the
`
`20
`
`

`

`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness.” Id. (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17 (1966)). “The central inquiry in analyzing an ornamental design for obviousness
`
`is whether the design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who
`
`designs articles of the type involved.” In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`To determine if a design is obvious, the Federal Circuit has prescribed a two-
`
`step process. First, one “must find a single reference, a something in existence, the
`
`design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design,” i.e.,
`
`one must “discern the correct visual impression created by the patented design as a
`
`whole” and then “determine whether there is a single reference that creates basically
`
`the same visual impression.” Campbell’s Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 939
`
`F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678
`
`F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100,
`
`103 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A primary reference need
`
`not be identical to or even contain all of the ornamental features present in the
`
`patented design in order to be “basically the same” as the patented design. MRC
`
`Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1333 (affirming summary judgment of invalidity for
`
`obviousness based on a primary reference found to create basically the same visual
`
`21
`
`

`

`impression as patented design despite lacking at least three identified ornamental
`
`elements of the patented design); see also Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc., 117 Fed.
`
`App’x 761, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding prior art drill bit having a different shaft
`
`shape tha